Dan Kent

So they'd like to purchase shares at a discount to intrinsic value.

So if they're looking at 1.4 X, they probably mean, you know, or they probably think that the, the value of all the underlying conglomerate, like the entire businesses is,

is probably more than that, anywhere from 1.5 and above.

And a lot of people will ask, well, why wouldn't the market just accurately value Berkshire at this?

And it's just because these types of companies always trade at a discount.

There's not a lot of analysts who are going to be able to analyze the entire underlying portfolio of companies.

So you kind of have to lean towards the fact that Berkshire...

knows what they're doing here, they know the company's best.

So in that way, you know, it's hard to analyze fully.

But that's kind of the value, I kind of get the impression they think, you know, anywhere from one and a half to 1.8x book value is what they believe the company is worth.

And that's kind of why they've started buying back.

But it's very tiny, what do you say was 230 million?

Yeah, it was kind of the same with Intact, which would be, I mean, kind of similar model PNC insurance, like property and casualty.

they posted really good results, but it was also because of the catastrophe situation.

Like you have lower catastrophe results in a quarter, you're going to have a lower combined ratio, but like the market knows that this environment won't last.

Like you're eventually going to hit a quarter where you're paying out a ton of money because of whatever it may be like in the States, probably a ton of, you know, weather related events up here, fires are always an issue.

So there's always going to be ugly and good quarters.

So the market really doesn't react.

There's a lot of people who wonder during a quarter when they got to pay out $4 billion worth of catastrophe losses, why the market doesn't hammer them for that.

And they just kind of know that these are going to level out over time.